A Supreme Court ruling on the UK’s Rwanda policy need not lead to conflict with the ECHR
The prime minister’s ambition for ‘creative Europe-wide solutions’ to small boat crossings will not progress if his government attack the European Court of Human Rights.
This week the UK’s highest court will give its ruling on the lawfulness of the government’s ‘Rwanda policy’. Five judges will scrutinize whether ten asylum-seekers can be removed to Rwanda, where their claims would be dealt with under the Rwandan asylum system.
The Supreme Court is examining the case after a Court of Appeal two-to-one majority decision in June. This ruled that assurances given by Rwanda’s government, whilst given in good faith, were insufficient to ensure that there is no real risk to the asylum-seekers – the risk being that they could be wrongly returned to countries where they could face persecution or other inhumane treatment.
The Supreme Court hearing took place between 9 to 11 October, with the judgment expected on 15 November. It is impossible to predict which way the court will rule.
But it is possible to say what the court’s decision will not do: it will not rule on the principle of removing asylum seekers to a safe third country. A large part of the case turns instead on the credibility of assurances given by the Rwandan government about the safety of asylum-seekers it receives.
In this respect, the case is reminiscent of those concerning the deportation of terrorist suspects, where previous governments have also had to ensure they received credible assurances from the receiving state.
Neither will the decision delve into the political merits of the Rwanda policy: the court will seek to stick to the facts and law relevant to the case.
The case will also not affect the many other practical issues beyond human rights and legal concerns which are preventing migrants being removed to Rwanda or elsewhere, including the UK’s own significant issues processing its backlog of existing applicants and lack of agreements with other countries.
Click here to continue reading the full version of this Expert Comment on the Chatham House website.
Latest News from
Russia’s war on Ukraine has strengthened Lukashenka but undermined Belarus05/12/2023 09:20:00
Aliaksandr Lukashenka has capitalized on the conflict, but his regime’s dependence on Russia is eroding Belarusian sovereignty.
What COP28 needs to address to avoid climate disaster04/12/2023 12:20:00
The climate is on its way to exceeding a 1.5°C increase in the global temperature. World leaders can stop it – but they have to act now.
The UK's new development strategy is a good start but should be bolder29/11/2023 09:20:00
The white paper should help restore confidence in the UK’s approach to international development, but it ducks some central questions.
What a far-right surge in the Netherlands means for Europe27/11/2023 12:20:00
A solid bloc of Eurosceptic parties in power is cause for concern.
The Hamas–Israel hostage deal could pave the way to de-escalation and ultimately peace23/11/2023 12:20:00
Plans to rebuild Gaza after the war must be made alongside securing the safe return of all hostages.
Argentines voted to dismantle Peronist patronage. Whether Milei can do that is uncertain21/11/2023 16:20:00
Milei provides a voice for those disgusted with Argentine politics, but his plans are vague and his political power uncertain.
The closer Israel gets to destroying Hamas, the more likely war with Hezbollah becomes21/11/2023 09:20:00
The US must do everything it can to prevent another devastating war.
Biden needs to convince Americans that dialogue with China is in their interests20/11/2023 14:20:00
That is not easy when Republicans see electoral advantage in attacking him as ‘soft on China’.